DO physicians can get MD title?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

If anything the LCME should be licking it chops to absorb some DO schools who have been around for 50+years or are state schools. They are established and can easily add revenue.

Yea but the school has to apply to get accredited first. Take MSUCOM for example, a good state school around for decades. The roots of "osteopathy" run way too deep in Michigan for them to even think about this, and it's really unfortunate.

Originally Posted by CXCR4

Yea but the school has to apply to get accredited first. Take MSUCOM for example, a good state school around for decades. The roots of "osteopathy" run way too deep in Michigan for them to even think about this, and it's really unfortunate.

we prefer the term osteopathic medicine.

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

we prefer the term osteopathic medicine.

But the osteopathic part really isn't medicine.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

But the osteopathic part really isn't medicine.

We have a winner!

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

But the osteopathic part really isn't medicine.

ha ha johnny. it is what it is. can't wait to master palpation. am i psyched for cranial? no. but the extra neuroanatomy i'll learn will surely be somewhat beneficial. the OMM fellows at my school get rockstar caliber Gen Surg categorical spots each year b/c of their mastery of anatomy.

"Osteopathic medicine provides all of the benefits of modern medicine including prescription drugs, surgery, and the use of technology to diagnose disease and evaluate injury. It also offers the added benefit of hands-on diagnosis and treatment through a system of therapy known as osteopathic manipulative medicine. Osteopathic medicine emphasizes helping each person achieve a high level of wellness by focusing on health promotion and disease prevention."
AACOM

Why not study something useful like phrenology or witchcraft?

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

"Osteopathic medicine provides all of the benefits of modern medicine including prescription drugs, surgery, and the use of technology to diagnose disease and evaluate injury. It also offers the added benefit of hands-on diagnosis and treatment through a system of therapy known as osteopathic manipulative medicine. Osteopathic medicine emphasizes helping each person achieve a high level of wellness by focusing on health promotion and disease prevention."
AACOM

Of course you'd say that, you have the brain pan of a stagecoach tilter!

witthces brew, but DOs palpate. palpation is fun! sitting in a dark room doing rads johnny is not!

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

witthces brew, but DOs palpate. palpation is fun! sitting in a dark room doing rads johnny is not!

Why? I can palpate myself while I do it.

wait wait wait... hole the effin' phone.... I don't have to palpate as an MD? what is all this crap I have been learning in physical exam training? Imma file a complaint!

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Why? I can palpate myself while I do it.

Hahaha

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Why? I can palpate myself while I do it.

nah dude u can't just palpate yourself to fully master it.

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

nah dude u can't just palpate yourself to fully master it.

I thought every male was a master in self-palpation by the age of 14.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

wait wait wait... hole the effin' phone.... I don't have to palpate as an MD? what is all this crap I have been learning in physical exam training? Imma file a complaint!

right, i would assume MDs learn abdominal palpation and techniques used on routine physicals.

but an OMM structutal diagnosis takes palpation even further----though its often meaningless unless the patient presents with back pain or something like that.

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

but an OMM structutal diagnosis takes palpation even further

So when you guys perform a physical, you're saying it comes with a happy ending?

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

I thought every male was a master in self-palpation by the age of 14.

bro, you need a "palpation" consult.

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

right, i would assume MDs learn abdominal palpation and techniques used on routine physicals.

but an OMM structutal diagnosis takes palpation even further----though its often meaningless unless the patient presents with back pain or something like that.

I witnessed an OMM structural diagnosis once.... and it played an integral role in me declining a DO school I was accepted to. It is bad enough when chiropractors pretend to see subluxations on xray.... but please just keep OMM to the things that actually make sense. The reflex arc stuff is neat but when I read an AOA article on cranial and how the first steps require the practitioner to "get in tune" with the patient.... well.... srsly u gais?

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I witnessed an OMM structural diagnosis once.... and it played an integral role in me declining a DO school I was accepted to. It is bad enough when chiropractors pretend to see subluxations on xray.... but please just keep OMM to the things that actually make sense. The reflex arc stuff is neat but when I read an AOA article on cranial and how the first steps require the practitioner to "get in tune" with the patient.... well.... srsly u gais?

idk about cranial but a significant portion of the OMM structural exam is pretty routine in the field of PM&R among MD or DO attendings. Its no coincidence that the PD at Harvard's PMR program is a DO. totally agree on your point that there are some parts that need to be "less emphasized" i.e cranial to mildly put it..

1 in 4 medical students in the US is now learning this BS. Step back and think about that for a second.

Originally Posted by CXCR4

1 in 4 medical students in the US is now learning this BS. Step back and think about that for a second.

its even more when you consider US trained physicians only, and I wouldn't label all of OMM as such.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I witnessed an OMM structural diagnosis once.... and it played an integral role in me declining a DO school I was accepted to. It is bad enough when chiropractors pretend to see subluxations on xray.... but please just keep OMM to the things that actually make sense. The reflex arc stuff is neat but when I read an AOA article on cranial and how the first steps require the practitioner to "get in tune" with the patient.... well.... srsly u gais?

To each their own. Personally, I am thrilled to be starting medical school this Fall. I don't care about the degree title, nor do I care about whether or not I end up using OMM/OMT religiously in my practice. Chances are that I won't. There is also a 100% chance that YOU won't use a some stuff you will learn in medical school. So in all honesty, it is a moot point. You suck it up and move on. We have all had to learn and master topics that we were less than thrilled to be learning and don't plan on using ever again. In that respect, learning some "not so evidence-based" techniques is akin to the organic chemistry or physics that we ALL had to learn to become physicians.

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

idk about cranial but a significant portion of the OMM structural exam is pretty routine in the field of PM&R among MD or DO attendings. Its no coincidence that the PD at Harvard's PMR program is a DO. totally agree on your point that there are some parts that need to be "less emphasized" i.e cranial to mildly put it..

allopaths will do quite a bit regarding physical diagnosis. I would argue all that is necessary and likely to yield results. The things I saw were rocking on the hips and muttering to ones self about things being "out of whack" and then tugging on other things and muttering to ones self about how things are "way better lined up". This was during a DO interview day. This is bogus.

allopaths will not just leave it at abdominal palpation. but classical palpation is not going to net you too much information on someones hip. For that we use range of motion tests. still hands-on, but not palpation.

Originally Posted by AnthroDocFL

To each their own. Personally, I am thrilled to be starting medical school this Fall. I don't care about the degree title, nor do I care about whether or not I end up using OMM/OMT religiously in my practice. Chances are that I won't. There is also a 100% chance that YOU won't use a some stuff you will learn in medical school. So in all honesty, it is a moot point. You suck it up and move on. We have all had to learn and master topics that we were less than thrilled to be learning. Learning some "not so evidence-based" techniques is akin to the organic chemistry that ALL of us had to learn.

don't agree with the O-CHEM analogy. also its tough to be strictly 100% evidenced based in any type of manual medicine...this includes rehab, and even surgery..for obvious patient bias reasons

Originally Posted by AnthroDocFL

To each their own. Personally, I am thrilled to be starting medical school this Fall. I don't care about the degree title, nor do I care about whether or not I end up using OMM/OMT religiously in my practice. Chances are that I won't. There is also a 100% chance that YOU won't use a some stuff you will learn in medical school. So in all honesty, it is a moot point. You suck it up and move on. We have all had to learn and master topics that we were less than thrilled to be learning. Learning some "not so evidence-based" techniques is akin to the organic chemistry that ALL of us had to learn.

Did you seriously just compare OMM to organic chemistry?



Walter White is not amused.

Originally Posted by donkeykong1

don't agree with the O-CHEM analogy. also its tough to be strictly 100% evidenced based in any type of manual medicine...this includes rehab, and even surgery..for obvious patient bias reasons

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Did you seriously just compare OMM to organic chemistry?

You both missed my point. I clearly stated that there are certain topics that we all have to learn topics on the path of becoming physicians that we probably won't ever use again. You cannot seriously tell me that ALL of organic chemisty or physics will be used again in your medical practice...

Originally Posted by AnthroDocFL

To each their own. Personally, I am thrilled to be starting medical school this Fall. I don't care about the degree title, nor do I care about whether or not I end up using OMM/OMT religiously in my practice. Chances are that I won't. There is also a 100% chance that YOU won't use a some stuff you will learn in medical school. So in all honesty, it is a moot point. You suck it up and move on. We have all had to learn and master topics that we were less than thrilled to be learning and don't plan on using ever again. In that respect, learning some "not so evidence-based" techniques is akin to the organic chemistry or physics that we ALL had to learn to become physicians.

no... there is literally zero similarity. learning something based on sound principles that will not be personally applicable later is in no way like learning something based on supposition and anecdote that is in no way applicable. Some parts of OMM are cool and have sound concepts to back them (not sure on the research... but at least there are coherent mechanisms that dont involve chakras). The others really have no place in an evidence based system.

Originally Posted by AnthroDocFL

You both missed my point. I clearly stated that there are certain topics that we all have to learn topics on the path of becoming physicians that we probably won't ever use again. You cannot seriously tell me that ALL of organic chemisty or physics will be used again in your medical practice...

straw man

This is just an inappropriate argument. We are not concerned with whether or not some people choose not to use one thing or another. And yes, ALL of organic chem and ALL of physics are involved in, and form the foundations of, the principles we use later. Doesnt matter if you can balance an equation or solve a vector at the end..... you are comparing apples to suppositories.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

straw man

This is just an inappropriate argument. We are not concerned with whether or not some people choose not to use one thing or another. And yes, ALL of organic chem and ALL of physics are involved in, and form the foundations of, the principles we use later. Doesnt matter if you can balance an equation or solve a vector at the end..... you are comparing apples to suppositories.

I never once compared the evidence of organic chemistry to the evidence behind certain OMM techniques. I simply said there will always be topics that we learn that we will never have to see/use again. THAT IS ALL. I completely agree with you that it is a personal choice to use certain techniques that you learned or not. But for those that choose not to, it is not inappropriate to say that they are just things that we have to learn and move on from. Are you telling me you are going to use projectile motion or the Diels-Alder reaction again? That is hilarious.

Originally Posted by AnthroDocFL

I never once compared the evidence of organic chemistry to the evidence behind certain OMM techniques. I simply said there will always be topics that we learn that we will never have to see/use again. THAT IS ALL. I completely agree with you that it is a personal choice to use certain techniques that you learned or not. But for those that choose not to, it is not inappropriate to say that they are just things that we have to learn and move on from. Are you telling me you are going to use projectile motion or the Diels-Alder reaction again? That is hilarious.

Organic chemistry is less relevant because it's too abstract, although for those involved in research or pharmaceutical development it could be very relevant.

OMM is irrelevant because it's bull.

I have no problems with people who choose DO programs because they have no other options or because their local MD programs are really bad in comparison.

You lose me completely when you defend 19th century pseudoscience. I don't care what studies are done to rationalize OMM - there are too many vested interests behind those studies and those who might be objective don't care.

Once DOs started accepting pharmaceuticals as therapy, the entire rationale for OMM disappeared. Why OMM didn't disappear with it is beyond me.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

...ALL of physics are involved in, and form the foundations of, the principles we use later...

How about relativity?

Originally Posted by AnthroDocFL

I never once compared the evidence of organic chemistry to the evidence behind certain OMM techniques. I simply said there will always be topics that we learn that we will never have to see/use again. THAT IS ALL. I completely agree with you that it is a personal choice to use certain techniques that you learned or not. But for those that choose not to, it is not inappropriate to say that they are just things that we have to learn and move on from. Are you telling me you are going to use projectile motion or the Diels-Alder reaction again? That is hilarious.

You missed the point... like really really missed it.....

Originally Posted by Loudster

How about relativity?

Don't underestimate how fat your patients might be.

I've definitely been around a few who could cause relativistic time dilation.

Originally Posted by CXCR4

1 in 4 medical students in the US is now learning this BS. Step back and think about that for a second.

And taxpayers in 6 states are supporting public med schools that teach this.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Organic chemistry is less relevant because it's too abstract, although for those involved in research or pharmaceutical development it could be very relevant.

OMM is irrelevant because it's bull.

I have no problems with people who choose DO programs because they have no other options or because their local MD programs are really bad in comparison.

You lose me completely when you defend 19th century pseudoscience. I don't care what studies are done to rationalize OMM - there are too many vested interests behind those studies and those who might be objective don't care.

Once DOs started accepting pharmaceuticals as therapy, the entire rationale for OMM disappeared. Why OMM didn't disappear with it is beyond me.

I completely agree. Parts of organic are relevant, and I do use some organic chemistry in my current research with clinical trials. Obviously some drugs require knowledge of isomers due to the "R" and "S" configurations. In addition, the steps required to form dopamine are relevant to the hydroxylation reactions we learned in organic and biochem.

Where can you quote me on defending "19th century pseudoscience?" If I do enroll in a DO school, I will have to learn OMM and pass examinations on it regardless of my person opinions on ANY of it. It will be my personal choice whether or not to use ANY of OMM. There is no harm in learning it and never using it... I simply said there are always topics that people are less than thrilled to learn. Once again, I will reiterate that I never compared the evidence of organic/physics to the evidence of OMM.

Originally Posted by AnthroDocFL

...Once again, I will reiterate that I never compared the evidence of organic/physics to the evidence of OMM.

I got your analogy the first time you posted it. That Spectre and JonnyBrawndo didn't shouldn't surprise anyone given the content of their posts in this thread.

Originally Posted by AnthroDocFL

Where can you quote me on defending "19th century pseudoscience?" If I do enroll in a DO school, I will have to learn OMM and pass examinations on it regardless of my person opinions on ANY of it. It will be my personal choice whether or not to use ANY of OMM. There is no harm in learning it and never using it... I simply said there are always topics that people are less than thrilled to learn. Once again, I will reiterate that I never compared the evidence of organic/physics to the evidence of OMM.

It is the propagation of pseudoscience. Whether or not you use it is irrelevant, it should not be there. Tolerating pseudoscience is encouraging pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

You missed the point... like really really missed it.....

Considering it was you who accused me of comparing the evidence of organic chemistry to the evidence of OMM, it was YOU missed the point... like really really missed it. You completely misinterpreted what I was trying to say, as I never attempted to compare the two on the grounds of evidence.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

It is the propagation of pseudoscience. Whether or not you use it is irrelevant, it should not be there. Tolerating pseudoscience is encouraging pseudoscience.

Personally, I don't understand why republicans are so selfish and stupid. I don't understand why someone would watch football. I don't understand why people believe in creation. I don't understand why people fight against homosexuality. To solve all of this, I make sure to live my life the way I want to live. If you don't like osteopathic medicine, OMM, or anything about being a DO, than please feel free to GTFO. Seriously, we get it. You don't like OMM. None of us are so stupid that we need you to keep repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over again. I hope this thread gets closed soon because it is effing dumb.

Originally Posted by FrkyBgStok

...If you don't like osteopathic medicine, OMM, or anything about being a DO, than please feel free to GTFO. Seriously, we get it. You don't like OMM. None of us are so stupid that we need you to keep repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over again. I hope this thread gets closed soon because it is effing dumb.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

It is the propagation of pseudoscience. Whether or not you use it is irrelevant, it should not be there. Tolerating pseudoscience is encouraging pseudoscience.

??? Congratulations on getting into an MD school and not having to learn it. You saying that tolerating = encouraging is the epitome of an "if-then" fallacy.

In the end, I don't care what you think of osteopathic medicine. You're entitled to your own opinions.

Originally Posted by AnthroDocFL

??? Congratulations on getting into an MD school and not having to learn it. You saying that tolerating = encouraging is the epitome of an "if-then" fallacy.

In the end, I don't care what you think of osteopathic medicine. You're entitled to your own opinions.

That's the whole point of science - we're not all entitled to our own opinions. There are enough traditions in normal medicine that lack empirical evidence, do we really need to pay lip service to more bull?

If you aren't fighting against OMM, you're just further invalidating your degree. And the more credibility your degree gives to OMM, the less I want it associated with mine.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

...And the more credibility your degree gives to OMM, the less I want it associated with mine.

Oh Snap?

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

That's the whole point of science - we're not all entitled to our own opinions. There are enough traditions in normal medicine that lack empirical evidence, do we really need to pay lip service to more bull?

If you aren't fighting against OMM, you're just further invalidating your degree. And the more credibility your degree gives to OMM, the less I want it associated with mine.

100% agree with this.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

That's the whole point of science - we're not all entitled to our own opinions. There are enough traditions in normal medicine that lack empirical evidence, do we really need to pay lip service to more bull?

If you aren't fighting against OMM, you're just further invalidating your degree. And the more credibility your degree gives to OMM, the less I want it associated with mine.

DUN DUN DUN

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

That's the whole point of science - we're not all entitled to our own opinions. There are enough traditions in normal medicine that lack empirical evidence, do we really need to pay lip service to more bull?

If you aren't fighting against OMM, you're just further invalidating your degree. And the more credibility your degree gives to OMM, the less I want it associated with mine.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Your elitist ignorance is actually quite pitiful.

and I thought it was just NYC that have crazies...its a mad word.

Why post another one of these? No OP you can only have one in most states (or represent yourself as one other than what you are).

Originally Posted by AnthroDocFL

Considering it was you who accused me of comparing the evidence of organic chemistry to the evidence of OMM, it was YOU missed the point... like really really missed it. You completely misinterpreted what I was trying to say, as I never attempted to compare the two on the grounds of evidence.

THAT is why you missed the point. You cannot neglect those things. It is like comparing the sun and moon as similar - and guess what, they did that until we got over that whole center of the universe thing. You are denying the key differences in something in order to make an otherwise trivial point. Learning OMM is nothing like learning o-chem or physics simply because we will not remember and use everything we learned. That is just like saying apples are different from dogs because one is red. Yes... technically true... but that will not earn you your coveted golden star because there are much larger and more relevant differences to be discussed. And I suspect the comment on using diel alder was an attempt at sarcasm, but in the context of exactly how far you missed the point it is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard.

When someone is really sick, assuming the person is somewhat educated, they want to see an MD, not a DO.

Originally Posted by auburnO5

When someone is really sick, assuming the person is somewhat educated, they want to see an MD, not a DO.

And when they are actually educated they stop caring. People far more qualified than you determine who gets into the residencies and who is a competent physician. If a PD takes a DO you have to assume that person is as talented as the MDs around them.